Suchergebnisse

Having grown to one of the largest in the world in just over two decades, China's stock market is cited as a counterexample to the significance of law for financial market development. A thorough examination of the development of China's stock market, however, finds that law is actually critical to sustaining growth. On the other hand, the trajectory of development in China is growth first followed by law, and the improvement of law is caused by market growth. The experience of China suggests that law and market growth exhibit a bidirectional rather than unidirectional causal relationship, and the course of development is "growth-law-further growth." Nevertheless, this virtuous cycle is not a guarantee and market growth may not lead to stronger law in all instances, as evidenced by the fact that, although now better protected from market abuse, Chinese investors remain vulnerable to serious managerial misconduct at listed state-owned enterprises. Political and ideological constraints are the key obstacle. Politics and ideologies seem to be fundamental to stock market development, for they not only explain the stagnation of law in China despite market growth, but also, together with economic development, determine market growth, or lack thereof, in the first place. Furthermore, the strength of law in a country might not be predetermined by its legal origin, as law has improved in certain respects even in China—a country without the tradition of rule of law.

The 2008 financial crisis raised puzzles important for understanding how the capital market prices common stocks and in turn, for the intersection between law and finance. During the crisis, there was a dramatic five-fold spike, across all industries, in "idio­syncratic risk"—the volatility of individual-firm share prices after adjustment for movements in the market as a whole. This phenomenon is not limited to the most recent financial crisis. This Article uses an empirical review to show that a dramatic spike in idiosyncratic risk has occurred with every major downturn from the 1920s through the recent financial crisis. It canvasses three possible explanations for this phenomenon. Thereafter, this Article explores the implications of these crisis-induced volatility spikes for certain legal issues that depend analytically on valuation methodology and hence are affected by volatility: using event studies to determine materiality and loss causation in fraud-on-the-market securities litigation, determining materiality in cases involving claims of both insider trading and misstatements or omissions in registered public offerings, and deter­mining the extent of deference given to a corporate board that rejects an acquisition offer at a premium above the pre-offer market price. This analysis shows that the conventional use of event studies during periods of economic-crisis-induced volatility spikes results in understating the number of occasions when a corporate misstatement can be shown to have had a meaningful impact on a firm's stock price. Relatedly, the analysis suggests that during crisis times, insiders have substantially more opportunities to profit from trading on the nonpublic information that they possess and issuers conducting offerings have more opportunities to sell securities at an inflated price. Analysis shows that trying to cure this problem by lowering the standard of what is considered statistically significant is as likely to be socially harmful as socially beneficial. These conclusions counsel that the best response to the reduced effectiveness of private litigation as a deterrent to securities law violations during crisis times is to provide additional resources to SEC enforcement. Lastly, with respect to Delaware courts' recognition of "substantive coercion" as a justification for target-corporation deploy­ment of takeover defenses—arguably a dubious justification in normal times—crisis-induced idiosyncratic-risk spikes provide an unusually plausible claim that target shareholders may indeed make a mistake in tendering into a hostile offer. Analysis of the timing of the spikes in recent cases, however, shows that the claim is tenuous even in these circumstances.